Originally posted by ESPN NCAA president Mark Emmert would support a four-team playoff in college football -- as long as the field doesn't grow.

After giving his annual state of the association speech Thursday in Indianapolis, Emmert acknowledged he would back a small playoff if that's what Bowl Championship Series officials decide to adopt.

"The notion of having a Final Four approach is probably a sound one," Emmert said when asked what he heard coming out of New Orleans this week. "Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year and, of course, it would probably necessitate a complete end to the bowl system that so many people like now."

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, thought to be one of the strongest opponents of a playoff, also now seems amenable to the idea in the article.

It seems to weird to me, a casual college football fan, that this is the year where this stuff is brought up. A lot of it probably has to do with contracts coming and wanting to put together the package that's going to get them most money in the next round of TV contracts, but it's also a fix to the system after a year where it didn't feel broken. Not nearly compared to past years.

The problem with Alabama/LSU was not that Alabama was egregiously getting another shot - you could argue other teams, but no undefeated team was shut out of the top as in past years - but that it was a unexciting matchup and a rematch of boring game (which turned out to be another boring game!) It was fair, it was also something less people wanted to see than last year's title game, and that drop in interest seems like more a motivating factor than all the Boise State and Oregon exclusions in years past.

(It wasn't just the title game that was boring, though that wasn't helped by having just the one player who seemed to capture people's attentions. All the non-BCS teams blew their chances and did it too soon, the best player played on a undercovered West Coast team who lost and then disappeared, the Heisman winner played for a non-football power which oddly seems to be suddenly great at a lot sports how peculiar, traditional famous teams Ohio State & USC were taking the year off, and Penn State took all the air out of the room. No one's made a thread here about college football since the last BCS rankings, so y'all seemed to find it all boring too.)

I'm in favor of playoffs, because playoffs are generally exciting and I have no loyalty to the regular season or bowls or college football in any form much at all. Anything that allows me to pay no attention and drop in at the most exciting moment is appreciated. It just seems like we're on the road to getting the right result for the wrong reasons. College football, and most sports, are designed to artificially create excitement every season, but some seasons are not going to work out the way you want. Broad decisions based on exceptional don't work well in the long term.

On the other hand, I have been rooting for chaos all these years to change the BCS, when I really should've been rooting for nothingness. My bad.

I'd probably prefer +1 championship after all the other bowls have played. Part of the issue is also how lackluster the BCS bowls have been with some of the automatic qualifiers lately.

If they did the +1, the BCS could limit their focus to just figuring out which two teams belonged in the BCS Championship at the end of the year. The Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange could either keep having conference champions, or go with whatever criteria they wanted to fill their bowls (the same way they did pre-BCS). Have BCS rankings after those games have played, take the top 2, and then you've got your national championship.

I grant you that there's still the potential for controversy if #2 and #3 don't play each other and they both have a case for playing in the championship game. And maybe you still have the issue of getting alumni to buy seats / flights / hotel rooms at such short notice.

I am for it. Anything that takes it even a little bit out of the voters hands is a win for everyone. The problem isn't the computers, its the bullshit voters who have their own agendas and it came to roost this year. They can also fix the bowls where top 15 teams play unranked teams leading to terrible games would be a nice step forward too.

Originally posted by lotjxI am for it. Anything that takes it even a little bit out of the voters hands is a win for everyone. The problem isn't the computers, its the bullshit voters who have their own agendas and it came to roost this year. They can also fix the bowls where top 15 teams play unranked teams leading to terrible games would be a nice step forward too.

But...this wouldn't take anything out of the voters hands though. They still would use rankings and vote on which teams get in. Even in a plus one, voters would decide which bowl winners were worthy. It's not doing anything to end any controversy, it's just looking for more money.

They're reacting to slightly lower ratings for some of the games, ignoring great ratings overall. Personally I think it was due to all the scandals and traditional powers being down and conference shakups, not some trend that will keep things that way.

In the end, I think they'll talk about it and maybe consider a plus 1 but I don't even know if they'll go that far. I could see them dumping the automatic qualifier to get the lower bowls to stop complaining and end the conference shuffling. That's probably the only safe bet for change this time around, but who knows. They like money.

Ladies and gentlemen, the following public service message is brought to you by your friends from D-Generation X, who would like to remind each and every one of you that if you're not down with that, we've got two words for you...

Originally posted by wmatisticI could see them dumping the automatic qualifier to get the lower bowls to stop complaining and end the conference shuffling. That's probably the only safe bet for change this time around, but who knows. They like money.

I have a nasty feeling that if the automatic qualifier requirements are removed, it's actually going to result in less placements of non-Big 6 conference teams. This year's a perfect example - Boise State was ranked higher than both Virginia Tech and Michigan and got passed over twice because "they won't draw" in the eyes of the big bad bowl commissioners. That mindset doesn't just go away with AQ's out of the picture - in fact, if anything it just gets worse. If these rankings are going to exist, then mechanisms need to be adhered to so that they are actually followed when the bowls are filled, so better teams like Boise and Kansas State aren't left out in favor of poorer teams like Virginia Tech and Michigan for money reasons. (The only exception to this that you leave intact is the 2-team-per-conference limit, because you don't want a scenario where one conference gets half the spots.)

smark/net attack Advisory System Status is: Elevated(Holds; June 18, 2006)While the switch from Cena to RVD should alleviate some complaints, the inevitability of the belt's return to Cena (note where Summerslam is this year) and the poor initial showing by the new ECW are enough to keep the indicator where it is for now. The pieces are in place, though, especially on RAW, for improvements to be made to the IWC's psyche in the near future.

I don't really feel sorry for Boise State. Every conference has been trying to add teams and you can't convince me that one of them wouldn't take Boise State. But instead of Boise State making anything happen they just sat there doing nothing. Then when the Big East was blown up and became even shittier than it already was the jumped in so they could be in a "BCS Conference" but also still have a pathetic schedule.

I'm all for a four-team playoff and don't want it to be larger than that. Yes, the voters still have a lot of power in deciding the four teams but it's a step in the right direction. Wasn't the big gripe that Oklahoma State should be in instead of Alabama? They would in a four game tournament. TCU would have been in last year and the year before that with Cincinnati. In 2008 it would have fixed the Texas or Oklahoma debacle. How often does a team ranked lower than 4th really deserve a shot? Maybe 2006 Boise State or 2004 Utah. Obviously some of the non-BCS schools don't get as much respect as the BCS schools but they do get a ton more respect than even five years ago. An undefeated TCU, Boise State or Utah would get in the top 4 now unless it was a season with a ton of deserving teams. Boise State probably would have been 4 this year if they didn't blow it.

There will always be controversy over who gets in, but I would rather the controversy be over spots 4,5,and 6 than #2.

"Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year and, of course, it would probably necessitate a complete end to the bowl system that so many people like now."

Originally posted by QuezzyI don't really feel sorry for Boise State. Every conference has been trying to add teams and you can't convince me that one of them wouldn't take Boise State.

Well, you can refuse to be convinced all you want, but that doesn't make it untrue. Are you arguing - without evidence, naturally - that Boise State refused invitations to the Big 12, Big Ten, and/or Pac-12? Really?

That's not true, no matter how deep you bury your head in the sand. It's really a ridiculous argument. If you just want to make things up and assume them to be true for no reason whatsoever other than it fits your preconceived notions, good for you, but it's not a good argument.

Then when the Big East was blown up and became even shittier than it already was

By just about any measure, the Big East wasn't even the worst BCS league this year. Here is one example of such a measure.

More to the point, Syracuse has been a joke for the better part of a decade and Pitt has had one or two decent seasons in the same time frame. Losing West Virginia sucks - though it's not for sure that's even going to happen yet - but Boise State is better than any of the three teams leaving by a sizable margin. Houston has at least the past couple of years been better than either Syracuse or Pitt. I don't think the league is any worse as far as on-the-field products after the changes than before. But if you want to continue to just make shit up, I guess I'm going to have a hard time convincing you of that.

UCF, San Diego State and SMU don't add much besides numbers, sure, but what else could the conference do? I guess we should just let all the big conferences call all the shots, including what other leagues are even allowed to exist? Why even have a season at all? Maybe we should just put the names 10 or 15 richest programs in the country into a hat and draw one to receive that crystal football.

Aside from the possibility that 3 of the top 4 teams this past year were in the SEC (great football, but somewhat regional appeal for national TV/big ratings money purposes?) I don't see how you have the big bowl games if you're taking 4 teams out of the mix.

Could be I'm coming from a Big Ten perspective, where fans really want to keep their Rose Bowl tradition intact.. but I just can't see taking 4 teams out of the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta bowls, and having those games retain their cachet.

OTOH, if you advance the four winners of those games to the 4-team playoff, that would seem about as good a solution as is out there.

IIRC, it's six 'automatic' berths between the four bowls, which leaves room for a Boise State/outsider at-large team, and also Notre Dame if they meet the minimal (by comparison) standard they have of qualifying for the BCS.

"Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year and, of course, it would probably necessitate a complete end to the bowl system that so many people like now."

How do the lower divisions make the playoff work?

And most every state I can think of has playoffs at the high school level. (I know Washington has a 16-team playoff, and I think Oregon has a 32-team playoff.) Somehow those kids make it through those OK.

No matter what they do, they should ABSOLUTELY take the choosing out of the teams of the voters and put it into the hands of a committee whose job is to pick teams for a four-team playoff. That's how the every other sport works.

Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus

Over the years I've been a vocal proponent of the bowl system, but I've changed my mind and am with JayJay. The problem, to me, is not only that the BCS isn't really capable of solving these problems, but also that the BCS is dictated basically by money rather than what actually puts the best team on the field. The Coaches Poll is nothing but political garbage (the AP poll is only slightly better), and the computers are flawed in that it's not really clear exactly what they're supposed to be ranking.

The only reservation I have is that if a playoff does happen, then the bowl games become even more meaningless than they already are. I mean, of course they're nothing but glorified exhibitions now, but they do mean something to the fans and players. Some of them anyway. I think whatever significance they do have would be greatly diminished. Realistically each year, if we were to have a four-team playoff, you could put together a list of eight to 10 teams before the season even started and most years have all four teams come from that list, meaning more than 90 percent of the country literally has nothing to play for. What good is a conference title in this circumstance, when the only reward is a game that is even more meaningless than it is today? I don't like that.

So I think it has to be more than four teams to be worthwhile. I think eight at the bare minimum, and preferably 16 teams. And I agree that it has to be an NCAA committee like what they do in all the other sports. Having bowl executives or BCS officials pick the teams solves nothing.

Also, I would be OK with losing a regular season game for the purpose of allowing a playoff to happen. Teams played 11 games a year for decades, and a 12th was added just a few years ago without a collapse in the time-space continuum. Bowl teams that go to conference title games are already playing 14 games. They can make a three- or even four-round playoff tournament work if they really want to, in my opinion.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanThe only reservation I have is that if a playoff does happen, then the bowl games become even more meaningless than they already are. I mean, of course they're nothing but glorified exhibitions now, but they do mean something to the fans and players. Some of them anyway. I think whatever significance they do have would be greatly diminished. Realistically each year, if we were to have a four-team playoff, you could put together a list of eight to 10 teams before the season even started and most years have all four teams come from that list, meaning more than 90 percent of the country literally has nothing to play for. What good is a conference title in this circumstance, when the only reward is a game that is even more meaningless than it is today? I don't like that.

I don't worry about much of this. If they made a 16-team playoff? Sure. But with four teams in the playoff you will have a LOT of teams that know they aren't going to the playoff, anyway. I think people will still watch the games (because it's *football*) but if I were them I would put as many of the New Year's Day bowl BACK ON NEW YEAR'S DAY. Major bowl games on January 2 and 3 don't need to happen.

And besides, you can use the NIT as an argument about why the bowls would matter less (as in, "who cares about the NIT") and I get that, but for the *players and teams?* I would just ask, have you ever seen a team win the NIT and be unhappy holding the trophy? If you give players something to compete for they will show up and compete.

Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus

Originally posted by JobbermanThere will always be controversy over who gets in, but I would rather the controversy be over spots 4,5,and 6 than #2.

"Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year and, of course, it would probably necessitate a complete end to the bowl system that so many people like now."

How do the lower divisions make the playoff work?

In the FCS 10 confrence champs + 6 at large make it in.

-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year ---- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --

Which is why I don't even want to go to four teams. It won't end any controversy, just lead to future expansion talk which leads to future expansion talk, etc. Heck what sport with a playoff doesn't have expansion talk on a regular basis? The ones that basically take half the league into the postseason already I'd say like the NBA and NHL. And all of those sports have incredibly boring regular seasons(MLB, College BB, etc) compared to DI football.

People can say they just want four teams or just eight and that's it but that hasn't worked in any other sport and won't here. The more you expand, the more pointless the regular season until we've got Rivalry games the last weekend where teams are resting starters for the playoffs. Fantastic.

But let's be realistic, we're not getting an 8 or 16 team playoff from these talks, probably not even four. Can you really see the people in charge making the drastic changes being discussed here? I just don't buy it.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanThe only reservation I have is that if a playoff does happen, then the bowl games become even more meaningless than they already are. I mean, of course they're nothing but glorified exhibitions now, but they do mean something to the fans and players. Some of them anyway. I think whatever significance they do have would be greatly diminished. Realistically each year, if we were to have a four-team playoff, you could put together a list of eight to 10 teams before the season even started and most years have all four teams come from that list, meaning more than 90 percent of the country literally has nothing to play for. What good is a conference title in this circumstance, when the only reward is a game that is even more meaningless than it is today? I don't like that.

I don't worry about much of this. If they made a 16-team playoff? Sure. But with four teams in the playoff you will have a LOT of teams that know they aren't going to the playoff, anyway. I think people will still watch the games (because it's *football*) but if I were them I would put as many of the New Year's Day bowl BACK ON NEW YEAR'S DAY. Major bowl games on January 2 and 3 don't need to happen.

And besides, you can use the NIT as an argument about why the bowls would matter less (as in, "who cares about the NIT") and I get that, but for the *players and teams?* I would just ask, have you ever seen a team win the NIT and be unhappy holding the trophy? If you give players something to compete for they will show up and compete.

Yeah but only one team wins the NIT. Only two basketball teams can end their seasons with meaningful tournament victories. There are 30-something bowl games. I think winning the NIT is inherently more meaningful than winning the Armed Forces Bowl for that reason.

Originally posted by ZeruelThe NIT is a bad example. Schools have turned down invites to it because it such a second class tournament.

One of the reasons many coaches and programs like something like the NIT or any bowl game outside of money is practice. You can have those extra practices and games, in some cases alot. Coaches love all the practice time and games they can get.

Wichita State felt snubbed by the NCAA last March, was invited to the NIT and ended up winning it. While not March Madness, it really did mean alot to the players and fans. As I recall, they had a couple of home games in it and made some scratch also. And they at least got a mention or two in the state and national media. The coach feels it helps recruiting and I imagine coaches winning most bowls feel he same way with the win and the TV exposure no matter how minor.

Maybe not, but some bumps were of their own making and others could have been avoided by spending some draft picks more wisely. Between the 2006 and 2007 drafts they only really hit on Maroney, Gostkowski and Merriweather.